Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Undefined discussion subject.

13

Comments

  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    HYUFD said:

    Trump acts like a deranged loon, Clinton acts statesmanlike
    The Dem's should pray that the FBI arrest Hillary and put an end to her Presidential bid. Either Biden or Sanders would fare far better against Trump. She's going to be annihilated.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    edited May 2016
    Tim_B said:

    Trump has lived his life as a rich Manhattan socialite in the glare of enthusiastic negative press coverage of his affairs, peccadillos etc. There is nothing really to be uncovered from his past. It's all out there in the public domain.

    Clinton is quite the opposite. The mainstream press has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover their scandals in more than cursory fashion, and there have been many over the years.
    The Clintons have had multiple airings of their dirty laundry from Whitewater to Monicagate to the email scandal, there are treasure troves of information on Trump's dodgy business dealings with dubious people and his personal life (including the reasons Ivana Trump left him) which have yet to get a national hearing
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,854
    surbiton said:

    You mean the Whitewater rubbish. Remind us what happened to that ?
    Your response is why Clinton has a problem. Most people mistakenly assume that all of the past scandals are already factored in to people's perceptions of her, but the truth is that most people are only vaguely aware of one or two stories and will be shocked by some of the details.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538

    Well the first six words of that is right, but the rest is very wrong.
    Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255

    If I were to advise Remain, I'd advise them not to overplay their hand.

    They might convince a few people with a gentle warning on security co-operation, but likening Brexit to a father abandoning his wife and children risks making them a target for mockery.
    Well the CAA have just done Leave a big favour. They have responded to the petition calling for the Superpuma helicopters to be grounded permanently (26,000 signatures over the last 6 days) by saying that they have no authority to do that. It has to be decided at a European level.

    Now actually the fact is that it has to be decided by the EASA which is the EU plus the EFTA countries. But no one seems to be paying much attention to this at the moment and are just saying it is 'the EU'.

    So whilst I am annoyed that the CAA does not have the authority to produce a permanent ban, the impression I get at the moment is that the lack of clarity by they CAA has helped Leave gain a little more support.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729
    Trump won the nomination by scoring lots of non-majority plurality wins with about 10.5 million votes; adding in the primaries to come, maybe that would have been 12 million had Cruz remained in the race. That's nice, but you need a majority and about 60 million to be President.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,518
    RodCrosby said:

    Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.

    The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
    Out of morbid curiosity, what happens if a Presidential candidate dies, or becomes incapacitated during the campaign?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited May 2016
    HYUFD said:

    Did not stop Reagan
    Reagan did not suffer from dementia until after his terms in office. While some have claimed he was senile in his second term, his doctors and his cabinet and aides all strongly denied that even after his retirement. No-one, as far as I know, claimed he was suffering any form of dementia during his successful presidential campaigns.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087

    Your response is why Clinton has a problem. Most people mistakenly assume that all of the past scandals are already factored in to people's perceptions of her, but the truth is that most people are only vaguely aware of one or two stories and will be shocked by some of the details.
    They are aware of enough, it has had a big enough hearing, she has the biggest negatives of any nominee since 1980, it is just the GOP have managed to nominate a candidate with even worse negatives which gives her her chance, it will not be an election of inspiration, it will be an election of which candidate voters loathe least after the mud slinging both campaigns will indulge in
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017
    Good article from Khan in the Observer. Talks about the damage of anti-Semitism in Labour and the importance of reaching beyond the core to engage with non-Labour voters. Lots of lessons for Corbyn Zlabour in his campaign, all of which will be ignored, of course. Why engage with ordinary voters when it's so much nicer to stay in your comfort zone? But I guess the difference between Khan and Corbyn is that the former wants to be in power to actually get things done.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087

    The Dem's should pray that the FBI arrest Hillary and put an end to her Presidential bid. Either Biden or Sanders would fare far better against Trump. She's going to be annihilated.
    Utter rubbish, she is comfortably ahead of Trump in the poll average, had the GOP nominated Kasich your statement may be plausible, against Trump absolutely not
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    Tim_B said:

    I'm still laughing at this one. Whatever Trump is, and the list could be considerable, a deranged loon he is not.
    Well he is hardly a model of calm rationality is he!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674
    tlg86 said:

    Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?

    I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.

    My opening line in the piece is

    "As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Sean_F said:

    Out of morbid curiosity, what happens if a Presidential candidate dies, or becomes incapacitated during the campaign?
    Depends on when that happens.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    RodCrosby said:

    Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.

    The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
    So what, his alzheimers was still there and he still won, there is no evidence Hillary even has alzheimers as yet
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    RodCrosby said:

    Depends on when that happens.
    Their VP nominee becomes the candidate if after the convention
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Trump in Lynden, WA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoLSbhiDMI

    The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.

    What a man!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,681

    Well it begins with

    'As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign'
    Naught but Islamist Propaganda! :lol:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    MTimT said:

    Reagan did not suffer from dementia until after his terms in office. While some have claimed he was senile in his second term, his doctors and his cabinet and aides all strongly denied that even after his retirement. No-one, as far as I know, claimed he was suffering any form of dementia during his successful presidential campaigns.
    It may not have been full blown but he was likely in the very early stages of alzheimers when still president
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JTtI3D6lqk
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538

    I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.

    My opening line in the piece is

    "As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
    Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,359
    RodCrosby said:

    Trump in Lynden, WA
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoLSbhiDMI

    The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.

    What a man!

    What a guy... ace rimmer!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    MTimT said:

    He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,854
    RodCrosby said:

    The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.

    What a man!

    How do you plan a campaign grid against someone with that kind of work rate who can dominate a news cycle at will by dropping a few phrases into his stump speech?
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    HYUFD said:

    So what, his alzheimers was still there and he still won, there is no evidence Hillary even has alzheimers as yet
    She has post concussive syndrome ( not Alzheimer's ) and should be kept as far away from the nuclear football as is humanly possible.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674
    tlg86 said:

    Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
    That's one of the things I look at.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    HYUFD said:

    It may not have been full blown but he was likely in the very early stages of alzheimers when still president
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JTtI3D6lqk
    Maybe, but not in his first term.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,526
    Peston politics show starts tomorrow on itv. Can't be worse than Marr can it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087

    She has post concussive syndrome ( not Alzheimer's ) and should be kept as far away from the nuclear football as is humanly possible.
    Because it will be so safe with Trump instead!!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    MTimT said:

    Maybe, but not in his first term.
    Who knows
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    HYUFD said:



    He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve

    You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    The Dem's should pray that the FBI arrest Hillary and put an end to her Presidential bid. Either Biden or Sanders would fare far better against Trump. She's going to be annihilated.
    What event is going to make people revise their opinion of either Trump or Clinton, two of the thst well know people in America?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,526
    Linekar appears to be wearing too many clothes MOTD!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017

    I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.

    My opening line in the piece is

    "As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."

    Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    HYUFD said:

    Who knows
    So your proof that he had dementia is "who knows?" LOL
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,854
    MTimT said:

    You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
    On the demographic question, my prediction is that the black vote will be a big factor in Trump's favour. If nothing else changes from 2012 he would only need to win 30% to take the White House.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,017
    tlg86 said:

    Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.

    There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Reagan was an ament, who slept his way through his time in office.
    "You only wake the President in two circumstances: World War Three, or if 'Hellcats of the Navy' is on TV..."
    http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538

    That's one of the things I look at.
    Perhaps 2020 will give us the result we thought 2015 was going to give us. But I still think Labour need to replace Corbyn to have any hope of getting near Number 10.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,681
    RobD said:

    What a guy... ace rimmer!
    Smoke me a Tory... I mean Kipper!
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729

    On the demographic question, my prediction is that the black vote will be a big factor in Trump's favour. If nothing else changes from 2012 he would only need to win 30% to take the White House.
    Trump appeals to the exact kind of person that African-Americans fear most, right?
    Clinton has been very strong among black voters this year, correct?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674
    tlg86 said:

    Perhaps 2020 will give us the result we thought 2015 was going to give us. But I still think Labour need to replace Corbyn to have any hope of getting near Number 10.
    I was thinking that.

    In 2015, we got the result people thinking we'd get in 2010, a small Tory majority, in 2020 will see the result people were expecting in 2015, a hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087

    There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.

    The Tories hold Trafford though, which is technically part of Greater Manchester
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674

    Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.

    Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    MTimT said:

    You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
    With white working class voters possibly, when you include white males who are college graduates and professionals yes
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,518

    There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.

    Labour have a massive lead over the Conservatives across the Metropolitan Boroughs, and a substantial lead in London. Their problems lie across the rest of the country.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    MTimT said:

    So your proof that he had dementia is "who knows?" LOL
    No, he obviously did have dementia, he died of alzheimers, who knows when it actually started is my point
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,854
    edited May 2016
    EPG said:

    Trump appeals to the exact kind of person that African-Americans fear most, right?
    Clinton has been very strong among black voters this year, correct?
    Initially she did and that's how she built up her delegate lead against Bernie, but as the contest wore on her numbers got worse and worse. Trump will be able to peel off some of the same people with his nationalist jobs message.

    Hillary will not take anything close to the percentage won by Obama.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    EPG said:

    Trump appeals to the exact kind of person that African-Americans fear most, right?
    Clinton has been very strong among black voters this year, correct?
    Trump will probably do a lot better with black voters than Mitt Romney.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087

    On the demographic question, my prediction is that the black vote will be a big factor in Trump's favour. If nothing else changes from 2012 he would only need to win 30% to take the White House.
    He will not get 30% of the black vote, especially with Obama campaigning for Hillary
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
    All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,526
    edited May 2016
    Trump has little to no chance of winning the popular vote. The question is can he win enough states like florida. Hillary racking up all the massive Hispanic vote in california is irrelevant, it all about those crucial 10 or so states.

    What was interesting in the primaries were that the states Hillary was winning were the states trump did well in, but obviously you aren't comparing apples with apples.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674
    perdix said:

    All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.

    In politics sometimes perceptions matter more than the facts, and we've had several Tories publicly condemn the campaign.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    The Trump Presidency will just assume an inevitability sooner or later.

    The opposition (Clinton) is haggard, tired and backward-looking, mired in scandals.

    Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate for change.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,526
    Eddie spheriods first job after politics going to end in relegation...
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:


    No, he obviously did have dementia, he died of alzheimers, who knows when it actually started is my point

    You can't "die of Alzheimers".

    Death will result from complications brought on by the condition such as a heart attack, strokes, lung infections, kidney failure etc.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    GeoffM said:

    You can't "die of Alzheimers".

    Death will result from complications brought on by the condition such as a heart attack, strokes, lung infections, kidney failure etc.
    So Alzheimers is the root cause
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    RodCrosby said:

    The Trump Presidency will just assume an inevitability sooner or later.

    The opposition (Clinton) is haggard, tired and backward-looking, mired in scandals.

    Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate for change.

    Trump is Goldwater 2 (albeit he will probably win a few more states), Trump is a once in a generation gift from the Republicans to the Democrats in an election the GOP had every chance of winning!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    edited May 2016

    Trump has little to no chance of winning the popular vote. The question is can he win enough states like florida. Hillary racking up all the massive Hispanic vote in california is irrelevant, it all about those crucial 10 or so states.

    What was interesting in the primaries were that the states Hillary was winning were the states trump did well in, but obviously you aren't comparing apples with apples.

    If Trump does not win the PV vote he loses, Romney did worse in the EC vote than the popular vote in 2012
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,854
    HYUFD said:

    Trump is Goldwater 2 (albeit he will probably win a few more states), Trump is a once in a generation gift from the Republicans to the Democrats in an election the GOP had every chance of winning!
    Cruz would have been Goldwater 2. Trump is a much tougher opponent.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594

    In politics sometimes perceptions matter more than the facts, and we've had several Tories publicly condemn the campaign.
    Yes - and since Khan has now won, were the same accusations to be made,/continued (even if with reason) it would be taken as an attack on all those who voted for Khan as well, since they heard the accusations and decided they were nonsense.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594

    There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.

    Didn't it used to be all 96? The red fortress must be crumbling!
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729

    Trump has little to no chance of winning the popular vote. The question is can he win enough states like florida. Hillary racking up all the massive Hispanic vote in california is irrelevant, it all about those crucial 10 or so states.

    What was interesting in the primaries were that the states Hillary was winning were the states trump did well in, but obviously you aren't comparing apples with apples.

    Obviously not, but it's still relevant. Hillary wins among non-whites, Trump wins among whites who live near non-whites. This is why I think Hillary will retain the ethnic minority vote at Obama levels, with her African-American vote share at near-Obama levels. Look at the levels of fear and unease among black people in America and I find it hard to believe they will vote for Trump in large numbers!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    RodCrosby said:

    Trump in Lynden, WA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoLSbhiDMI

    The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.

    What a man!

    In all honesty, I don't know how people find the energy to be in positions of power and influence sometimes. I knew someone who had a theory a lot of the great people of history were also people able to get by on less sleep than most people, say 3-4 hours a night.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674
    kle4 said:

    Didn't it used to be all 96? The red fortress must be crumbling!
    Lib Dem surge, they took a seat this week.

    Probably a bigger achievement than the Tories finishing ahead of Labour in Scotland
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087

    Cruz would have been Goldwater 2. Trump is a much tougher opponent.
    Many polls had Cruz doing better than Trump v Hillary, Trump is also the first Republican nominee since Goldwater to have substantial numbers of senior Republicans refuse to endorse him
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,526
    edited May 2016
    kle4 said:

    In all honesty, I don't know how people find the energy to be in positions of power and influence sometimes. I knew someone who had a theory a lot of the great people of history were also people able to get by on less sleep than most people, say 3-4 hours a night.
    I don't often get more than 4-5hrs a night (usually head to bed at 4am & get up at 8am) & don't feel the need ffor more. if nothing else it enables you to get a lot more done. I usually get the most done in that 11 to 4am slot as not many distractions.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594
    edited May 2016

    Good article from Khan in the Observer. Talks about the damage of anti-Semitism in Labour and the importance of reaching beyond the core to engage with non-Labour voters.

    The Khan situation reminds me quite a bit of Cameron in some ways. Post GE there was quite a lot of comment around that a lot of voters had a fairly benign or banal view of Cameron despite 5 years of cuts and accusations he was or wanted to be a right wing nutjob; they didn't fear him, even if he really was more right wing than he presents sometimes. Similarly with Khan, whatever the level of substance to the allegations against him re past associations, he just doesn't come across as someone to be feared in any way. He looks and sounds ordinary, even boring, and obviously makes an effort to say the right things in a way which shows he is aware of problems. He'll probably be a decent mayor.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    perdix said:

    All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.

    Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.

    We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited May 2016

    Cruz would have been Goldwater 2. Trump is a much tougher opponent.
    All these comparisons are stupid.

    Goldwater was 50 years ago. No internet. Or even Colour TV.

    And a country still reeling from probably its greatest political tragedy, seeking stability and continuity, as best it could.

    And Trump is no Goldwater, anyhow.

    Trump is Trump. No-one else.

    Like no other candidate ever in US history... [perhaps Huey Long comes closest, but he never got as far as a POTUS run]
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,594

    I don't often get more than 4-5hrs a night (usually head to bed at 4am & get up at 8am) & don't feel the need for it...if nothing else it enables you to get a lot more done. I usually get the most done in that 11 to 4am slot as not many distractions.
    If I don't get a solid 9 hours I'm pretty spent to be honest, and even then it takes me a few hours to get up to speed. Really cuts into my time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    kle4 said:

    If I don't get a solid 9 hours I'm pretty spent to be honest, and even then it takes me a few hours to get up to speed. Really cuts into my time.
    Churchill used to do much of his work in bed and in the bath
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,526
    HYUFD said:

    Churchill used to do much of his work in bed and in the bath
    And while half cut?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    RodCrosby said:

    All these comparisons are stupid.

    Goldwater was 50 years ago. No internet. Or even Colour TV.

    And a country still reeling from probably its greatest political tragedy, seeking stability and continuity, as best it could.

    And Trump is no Goldwater, anyhow.

    Trump is Trump. No-one else.

    Like no other candidate ever in US history... [perhaps Huey Long comes closest, but he never got as far as a POTUS run]
    Trump is running the same redneck focused campaign Goldwater did (Goldwater won the deep south for the GOP for the first time since the Civil War while getting trounced everywhere else)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087

    And while half cut?
    Well that too
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729
    Florida's not enough for Trump. Trump's do-minimum to win the presidency is to take every Romney state plus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I am assuming that several more-winnable states for Romney are harder for Trump, like Virginia.

    He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    EPG said:

    Florida's not enough for Trump. Trump's do-minimum to win the presidency is to take every Romney state plus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I am assuming that several more-winnable states for Romney are harder for Trump, like Virginia.

    He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.

    Originally I thought Trump would have a decent chance in Wisconsin and Minnesota: both still quite white states, and have been trending slightly Republican of late. Picking up one or both of them could've offset a failure to pick some of the more ethnically-diverse states like Virginia or Colorado.

    However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,087
    Danny565 said:

    Originally I thought Trump would have a decent chance in Wisconsin and Minnesota: both still quite white states, and have been trending slightly Republican of late. Picking up one or both of them could've offset a failure to pick some of the more ethnically-diverse states like Virginia or Colorado.

    However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
    Personally I think Trump could pick up Florida and Colorado but lose North Carolina and Utah
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,526
    No Gary in his pants on MOTD?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,677

    Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
    What puzzles me is that the Tories are still digging, with the Fallon interview today. I can see in a cynical way why they tried to play the Muslim card before the election - they thought they were losing so they might as well try it. But what's the point of still going on about it?

    Khan will be there for 4 years whatever they say. If he introduces sharia law and opens an ISIS recruiting office, they will have plenty of time to point it out; if he doesn't and is just a normal mayor, the continued warnings will look somewhere between stupid and poor losers. Why don't they either congratulate him with good grace or, if they can't bear to do that, just STFU?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729
    Danny565 said:

    Originally I thought Trump would have a decent chance in Wisconsin and Minnesota: both still quite white states, and have been trending slightly Republican of late. Picking up one or both of them could've offset a failure to pick some of the more ethnically-diverse states like Virginia or Colorado.

    However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
    Trump doesn't seem to do well among white people who live in states which are overwhelmingly white.

    Good news for Trump in today's Georgia poll; he leads Clinton by 1. It was a Clinton state in 1992. Oh, and Romney won it by 8 points.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited May 2016

    What puzzles me is that the Tories are still digging, with the Fallon interview today. I can see in a cynical way why they tried to play the Muslim card before the election - they thought they were losing so they might as well try it. But what's the point of still going on about it?

    Khan will be there for 4 years whatever they say. If he introduces sharia law and opens an ISIS recruiting office, they will have plenty of time to point it out; if he doesn't and is just a normal mayor, the continued warnings will look somewhere between stupid and poor losers. Why don't they either congratulate him with good grace or, if they can't bear to do that, just STFU?
    London isn't Britain.

    It isn't representative and often feels barely part of it.

    When people witter on about how bad the EU referendum result will be for the City most of the country says, "so what, they're greedy bastards anyway, let them suffer."

    London is an example of how awful Britain could become in many perceptions.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    EPG said:

    Trump doesn't seem to do well among white people who live in states which are overwhelmingly white.

    Good news for Trump in today's Georgia poll; he leads Clinton by 1. It was a Clinton state in 1992. Oh, and Romney won it by 8 points.
    Maybe because they tend to be a lot wealthier.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729
    AndyJS said:

    Maybe because they tend to be a lot wealthier.
    I'm sure the wealthy Republicans in states like Georgia voted for Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Carson, anyone! Stereotypically, I am thinking of regular churchgoers in the suburbs. Boss Hogg voted for the Don.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,300

    Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him

    Lynton is a bit of a one-trick pony, the trick in question being "Let's Be A Bit Racist". Identify a group and go "ew" a lot, whether it's Eastern Europeans (2005), Europe (2009), or Scots (2015). I assume adopting a similar technique for London 2016 (Muslims!) failed because there are enough Muslims in London to render the attack blunt.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    edited May 2016
    Danny565 said:

    Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.

    We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
    But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.

    So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,674
    viewcode said:

    Lynton is a bit of a one-trick pony, the trick in question being "Let's Be A Bit Racist". Identify a group and go "ew" a lot, whether it's Eastern Europeans (2005), Europe (2009), or Scots (2015). I assume adopting a similar technique for London 2016 (Muslims!) failed because there are enough Muslims in London to render the attack blunt.
    Sir Lynton Crosby knows London well enough to have won there in 2008 and 2012 without any of the tactics you mention above.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Pentlands_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)

    Interesting result in Pentlands the tory vote hardly went up and the Labour vote only fell about 2-3 % why is this so different when this used to be one of the tories safest seats.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,300
    edited May 2016

    Sir Lynton Crosby knows London well enough to have won there in 2008 and 2012 without any of the tactics you mention above.
    Unfortunately I can't remember the 2008 and 2012 campaigns well enough to gainsay you. However I can remember UK 2015. It was hardly subtle, was it?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    nunu said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Pentlands_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)

    Interesting result in Pentlands the tory vote hardly went up and the Labour vote only fell about 2-3 % why is this so different when this used to be one of the tories safest seats.

    The loss of David McLetchie's personal vote.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The broader line seems to be that Labour are on the side of terrorists, Islamists, anti-semites and undesirables.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited May 2016

    But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.

    So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
    Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).

    The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name, and the obvious suggestion of the Tory attacks was that this should be enough for Khan to be treated with more suspicion than white people in the same position.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Danny565 said:

    Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).

    The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name and thus should be treated with more suspicion as a result.
    Did Goldsmith suggest there were too many whites in TFL? That muslims were Uncle Toms?

  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729
    edited May 2016
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

    This page is intriguing. While not wishing to vest too much faith in early polling, it suggests that while Trump is in range in certain swing states like Florida and Ohio, he is doing worse than expected in several Romney states, and that could undermine the business of building up electoral votes from popular votes. I don't know how to put this most forcefully, but he ought to be leading in at least one poll in Utah.

    The euphemism is asymmetric realignment; he hasn't struck deep into Obama territory the way Clinton has in some Romney states. We aren't seeing narrow Trump leads in Minnesota, Maine or New Jersey.

    I expect Trump to consolidate Republican public support now that the primaries are over. He may not. And one would have to acknowledge that by this logic, Clinton may consolidate further Democratic support when her primaries end.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    chestnut said:

    Did Goldsmith suggest there were too many whites in TFL? That muslims were Uncle Toms?

    Khan did not suggest any Muslims were "uncle Toms".
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,300
    Danny565 said:

    Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).

    The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name, and the obvious suggestion of the Tory attacks was that this should be enough for Khan to be treated with more suspicion than white people in the same position.
    In the end, it was actually that simple, wasn't it? "LOOK! MUSLIM! EW!" Ah, the marketplace of ideas...:-)
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Danny565 said:

    Khan did not suggest any Muslims were "uncle Toms".
    Who was he talking about? Millwall supporters?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,729
    chestnut said:

    Who was he talking about? Millwall supporters?
    Don't keep fighting this battle. The evidence is that under scrutiny, this tactic whips up more defiance than complaisance.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    nunu said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Pentlands_(Scottish_Parliament_constituency)

    Interesting result in Pentlands the tory vote hardly went up and the Labour vote only fell about 2-3 % why is this so different when this used to be one of the tories safest seats.

    Maybe Gordon MacDonald is a particularly good constituency MP.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    EPG said:

    We aren't seeing narrow Trump leads in Minnesota, Maine or New Jersey.

    Minnesota and Pennsylvania (and New York) do show signs of moving towards Trump, while not yet in the Red column.

    Early days, though, admittedly...
This discussion has been closed.